Many of you would be familiar by now with the recently released movie called 300 supposedly based on the Battle at Thermopylae between a small group of Greeks vs. a large Persian army. Most of you might also be aware by now of the fuss surrounding this film, predominantly raised by people of Persian descent.

In fact a lot of people are probably confused as to why Iranians of Persian descent are making such a big deal about this film, and what their objections may be. Surely it's just a good, fun piece of entertainment which shouldn't be taken too seriously, right? Aren't the Persians just being sore losers?

I am a Persian. Like most people, I love a bit of fantasy and escapist fun, after all that's what movies are all about. But this film made me very, very angry in several respects. If you truly want to understand why, please read on.

The 300, the Fuss, the Furore

The film 300 is first and foremost a fantasized retelling of a mythicized battle. In the film, 300 jovial, battle-hardened, freedom-loving Spartans hold off literally millions of evil Persians. The Persians, depicted as sadistic, perverted, evil, blasphemous, dark and malignant, are hell-bent on invading Greece to kill innocent people and subjugate these humble Spartans. The King of the Persians, Xerxes, is depicted as a 9 foot tall God-King who variously screams at or beguiles King Leonidas of the Spartans, cajoling him to the Dark Side.

Did a relatively smaller number of Greeks briefly hold off a larger Persian army at Thermopylae? Yes. There is no doubt that this occurred, and that the Spartans in particular were brave to remain and fight in the face of overwhelming odds. But that's where the facts of the matter end. The film then renders a totally misleading account of even the most basic facts of the battle, in what might even be said to be almost a propagandistic manner. Let's look at some critical facts, starting with the Spartan's much-touted "love of freedom".

Let's be clear on this: the Spartans held slaves, the Persians generally did not. This fact alone totally shatters the underpinnings of this film. The Spartans were not fighting for a "new age of Freedom". Indeed the Spartans more often than not were fighting their fellow Greeks for Hellenic rulership. They were a Greek superpower engaged in constant power struggles. Meanwhile the entire Spartan and Greek empire was served by Greek slaves called Helots. These Helots had no personal or political freedom, toiling to provide the goods and services the Spartans enjoyed. They were ritually mistreated, often fatally, and their young were forcibly recruited into the army to fight for the Greeks. Indeed the Spartans lived in fear of the Helots as they were outnumbered by them and totally reliant on them.

Yet didn't all ancient empires hold slaves? The Persians did not as a matter of normal course, it was against the law. The Persians made a point of declaring this in Cyrus the Great's Charter of Human Rights which has been recognized by the United Nations as the first such charter:

I prevent slavery and my governors and subordinates are obliged to prohibit exchanging men and women as slaves within their own ruling domains. Such a traditions should be exterminated the world over.
In fact the Persians freed all the Jewish slaves upon conquering Babylon.

Whereas the Spartans and Greeks held and mistreated slaves and did so as a normal part of their economy, Persian troops came from many conquered lands, but they were paid and not enslaved to fight. Persian lands were ruled by local Governors (called Satraps) and were not enslaved nations. They were specifically allowed to retain their traditions, religions, and wealth. Persia was one of the first truly tolerant empires on Earth, attempting to bring a range of nations under an umbrella of Persian law and justice. Were the Persians saints on earth? I doubt that. But even by Greek accounts they certainly appear far more tolerant, just and good than the Spartans. The Greeks hold the main known accounts of the Persians – Alexander the Great destroyed the Persian records by burning down Persepolis. So despite their clear bias against the Persians, even the Greeks respected and revered them.

Serious Historical Inaccuracies

The film uses layer upon layer upon layer of such amazing and deceptive inaccuracies, that it is truly beyond belief. In this respect it is a fantasy film, but it is done with such an air of plausibility that the less educated may well be fooled into believing some of this nonsense (special effects aside), and recent comments on online forums proves this to be the case. So to clarify things, here are the highlights of the major inaccuracies of this film:

– The Persians are portrayed in a horrendously inaccurate fashion. Two simple examples demonstrate this.

This is what the Persian King Xerxes would have looked like:

Here is how Xerxes is portrayed in the 300:

Here are the Persian Immortals as they would really be:

Here is how they're portrayed in the film:

The Immortals did not wear Japanese-style armour or face masks, nor use Japanese-style Katana/Wakizashi sword combinations. They did not call themselves "Immortals" as a boast, this is a Greek name given to them. They obviously did not look like orcish man-beasts either, nor is it even clear how the Immortals fought at Thermopylae; whether they were used in full force or kept as a reserve for later battles in the Greek campaign. I'd suggest it seems unlikely that the 10,000 Immortals fought actively at Thermopylae in reality, as they were elite forces too valuable to sacrifice in a scenario involving an attack on a fortified mountain pass.

– The Persians are portrayed as perverse and blasphemous, godless people. Yet ironically it was the Greeks who had multiple gods and sacrificed offerings to them – often hundreds of animals sacrificed before battle to appease their Gods. The Persians on the other hand were Zoroastrians, a religion which only has one God and is the forerunner of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. It has as the central tenet "Good thoughts, good words, good deeds." The Persians did not engage in perverse or depraved acts – indeed unlike the Greeks, the Persians did not as a matter of common acceptance take small boys to bed for example. The Persians appear to have taken pleasure in the simpler things in life, such as the cultivation of beautiful gardens. They had a (ironically) very 'spartan', minimalist lifestyle. They were also Aryans, not dark people – the country Iran to this day retains its name meaning "Land of Aryans".

– King Leonidas did not flippantly organise 300 men to march off to war to show how brave the Spartans were. It was a matter of necessity since many of the Spartans and other Greeks were competing in the Olympic games and so did not turn up to engage the Persians in battle. There are of course other issues, such as the fact that the Greeks were not united in opposing the Persians; some wanted to make peace with the Persians not fight them. Most importantly, there were not only 300 Spartans who came to the battle of Thermopylae, there were 700 Thespians who joined them, and indeed a range of up to 6,000 other Greeks (some of them forcibly retained by the Spartans to fight). Thus the total Greek fighting force was closer to 7,000 for most of the battle.

– The numbers for the battle are generally incredibly nonsensical. It is claimed by the Greek historian Herodotus that they were around 2 million Persians. This is almost certainly totally absurd. Read the discussion at Wikipedia to understand why. The numbers were more likely to be in the range of 200,000, some even say as low as 30,000. The Greeks are claimed to have killed up to 20,000 Persians in the first couple of days, while only losing 2 -3 Spartans. Picture for yourself how stupid this claim is. Imagine if you will that 20,000 corpses could even fit in the mouth of a narrow pass, much less at the cost of only two Spartan lives. This among other claims by Greek historians is obviously the work of a fervent imagination designed to glorify the Spartans beyond belief. It also reinforces the fact that most accounts of the battle itself are likely over-hyped and exaggerated a great deal by the Greeks.

– The Persian army was large not due to "Persian cowardice", but because the Persians were marching on the whole of Greece itself, not just against the Spartans. The Spartans intercepted the Persians on the way through Greece. Not that using large numbers in an Army could be considered cowardice, otherwise the US, Russian and Chinese armies could then be accused of much the same thing in any recent engagements they've been involved in.

– The account of the battle itself is once again a somewhat hard-to-believe mythical story. But we do know that in contrast to the movie, the Spartans were undoubtedly heavily armored, not fighting half-naked, as they were facing an enemy who had a large number of archers. They maintained a tight Phalanx formation, and it would be unlikely they could break this formation, again for fear of being picked off by archers. They did not jump about killing hundreds of men with amazing dance-fighting techniques as the 300 would have you believe. The only thing which kept them alive for as long as it did was the strategy of using a tight-shielded Phalanx formation, maintained at the mouth of a narrow pass.

There are many other major and minor inaccuracies in this movie, but suffice it to say the film portrays actual events as accurately as the Star Wars trilogy.

Ok, So What, It's Just a Movie Dude

The most common response to these types of allegations will be "So what, the 300 is just a movie, it's not meant to be historically accurate!". Yes, of course it's a movie. I also doubt the producers will ever claim that it is historically accurate. It is based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller. Ostensibly there should be no problem. However because it is supposedly based on historical events, therein lies the danger of this film.

Now more than ever movies have incredible power. Their vividly realistic portrayals make us laugh, they make us cry, they anger and sadden us and they inspire and motivate us. In the face of rapidly declining knowledge and education among much of the populace, movies are defacto teachers of history and culture, of right and wrong, of human philosophy. They serve to generate or reinforce stereotypes, particularly among more impressionable, less experienced youth who are actually the target audience for this film.

When a movie purports to chronicle a historical event, even loosely so, it will be taken at face value by a large number of people who see it. Especially since there are no movies or popular accounts opposing this twisted version of the tale. If you read the many forum posts and online discussions about this film, it is brazenly being touted as being "reasonably accurate" by many who know no better. I even saw one discussion on the IMDB movie boards discussing whether we could live up to the ideals of the Spartans! Most people have no idea that aside from the Hollywood special effects, this film is actually way off the mark in almost every respect, particularly about the Spartans and the Persians, who they really were, and what they actually stood for.

Disturbingly, this film is clearly intended as a sort of morality tale, about "defending freedom" at all costs. The humble but militarily supreme Spartans, while heavily outnumbered, bravely fight to the end to secure freedom against tyranny. The Spartans are clearly a proxy for white western people, both in appearance and their jovial behavior. The Persians are clearly a proxy for Middle Easterners. Utterly humorless, totally evil, perverse and Godless, the Persians are shown as people who don't value freedom or justice. As a horde they are marching towards the Spartans to take away their freedom and impose horrible, blasphemous values upon them. King Xerxes almost exactly mimics the earthly incarnation of Satan himself. This is obviously designed to allow people to draw parallels with the evil threat of terrorism; of those who are coming to take our freedoms away. There are even clear hints of muslim extremism in the Persians: in the scene where the "Persian" (African) herald tells King Leonidas' wife to be quiet while the men are speaking; again something which the Persians did not do any more than the Spartans. Iran was invaded by Arabs and converted to Islam roughly 1,000 years after this tale is set.

I Sense an Agenda

I contend that this film has been specifically timed for release and designed to consciously or subconsciously appeal to people to draw obvious parallels between Persians (Middle Easterners) vs. Spartans (Americans) during a time in our history when there is a very real conflict between the two cultures, and the very real threat of an invasion of Iran by the US. Movie producers know full well that topical, controversial films are a recipe for box office success, and that is true of the 300 which is already racking up huge profits.

In the current political environment a film which is so irresponsibly inaccurate, almost deliberately deceptive and misleading, and so readily appeals to the lowest common denominator with its slick visuals and intuitively desirable but totally incorrect underlying message is something I deplore. Should it be banned or censored? I don't believe that is the way to treat information.

Sadly the real long-term solution would be that a more accurate film portraying the Persians (and Spartans) be released, or that people read widely about the actual facts on various ancient cultures, not just the Persians or the Ancient Greeks. But neither of these is likely to happen. People have no interest in making such an effort, or reading the often unpleasant truth about their heroes, particularly when a glitzy movie can make them yelp with excitement and pride over fictitious events.

A prominent US-based Persian director Kayvan Mashayekh, who created the beautiful movie The Keeper about 11th Century Persian poet Omar Khayyam is trying to produce a film on the ancient Persians called Cyrus the Great. Like his previous effort, it is obviously not going to gain any mainstream support, since there is little profit in telling the true story of the Persians. Not while there is money to be made by pandering to the bloodlust and misconceptions of 15 year old boys hell bent on perceiving themselves as freedom-loving Spartan heroes in the face of the evil foreigners.

Note: The forum is not open to commentary, however you can Email me at Koroush@tweakguides.com if you wish to provide constructive feedback. If you believe the article should be read more widely, please Digg it.

P.S: To those writing to me still not understanding how a fictional movie can cause outrage and offense, imagine if future generations only see a movie 'based loosely on the events of September 11 2001' as told by muslim extremists, in a popular glamorous movie where Osama Bin Laden is represented as everything good and righteous, and Americans are represented as godless man-beasts, who deserved to be attacked. Then tell me you believe such a movie would be essentially harmless entertainment, or that you'd want your kids to go see it.

P.P.S: This article is not meant as a direct attack on Greeks, modern or ancient. Both the Persian and Greek cultures contributed a great deal to mankind, and the Greeks had varied traditions and practices, and were not a homogenous group of people. Ironically most Greeks I've met know quite a lot about ancient Persia and are very respectful, as are Persians of Greeks. Thankfully we have been able to put past animosities behind us.

The Greeks, if we can believe Simonides, Aeschylus, and Herodotus, saw Thermopylae as a “clash of civilizations” that set Eastern centralism and collective serfdom against the idea of the free citizen of an autonomous polis. That comes through in the movie, especially in the fine performances of Butler and Lena Headey (Gorgo). If the Spartans seem too cocky and self-assured in their belief that they are the more effective warriors of a superior culture, blame Herodotus, not Zack Snyder.

Statutory warning: Plot spoilers ahead. Having got that out of the way, let’s plunge straight into the 300 controversy. The cinematic rendering of the truly graphic novel about the last stand at Thermopylae apparently has Iranians, Parsis and some Indian ‘intellectuals’ alike upset about its derogatory depiction of the Persians. Apparently, they’re miffed about Xerxes prancing around barechested like a punk rock star.

Truth be told, one suspects the intention was not so much to denigrate the Persian God-king as to showcase the actor’s rather magnificent physique. In fact, 300’s Xerxes isn’t just quite comely, he’s also a fairly generous, if occasionally hot-headed foe twice offering Leonidas overlordship not just of Sparta but of all Greece.

Actually, if anyone’s truly painted in a unflattering light, it’s the Greeks. The Spartan priests are a bunch of lecherous old men who succumb to the offer of a virgin a day to prevent the army from marching with Leonidas; leading Spartan politicians are in the pay of the Persian emperor; the non-Spartans bail out of the battle once it becomes obvious it’s a lost cause.

Sparta itself comes across as brutal, fascist society which slaughters emissaries and kills weak children at birth scenes in which its regimented soldiers talk about freedom and demo-cracy are almost hilariously ironic. So how come the Greeks aren’t perturbed but the Iranians are?

Ah, but the Greeks are in no danger of being invaded by the US, did you say? As many have pointed out, 300 is an example of the Bush administration using Hollywood to peddle its imperialistic agenda. Never mind that Christian conservatives, Bush’s bastion, have long nursed a hatred for the decadent, sinful entertainment industry, particularly hotshot young directors and musicians who get their rocks off on gore and sex.

Never mind that Hollywood itself is so completely Democratic and anti-Bush that the odds of it being used as a propaganda vehicle for the current government are even poorer than Leonidas’s 300 had against the mighty Persian army.

Why let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory, especially when it’s so much more fun to moan about the xenophobia of the wicked, racist West? And how dare anyone suggest that our outrage is indicative of nothing more than a pathetic lack of self-esteem? Or that just like a pen doesn’t always have to be a phallic symbol sometimes, just sometimes, a movie may be only a movie.